Thanks, Contrarius. I didn't mean to imply there wouldn't be A-C models still in use, only that there ought to be D-F models included in the lists/arsenal since they probably formed the bulk of the Panzer IIIs in the campaign. From what I recall, the A-C were test models (I think there were fewer than fifty produced in total. the D was a transition with a small production run, and then the E had about 100 made and the F 100 or perhaps more by May/June 1940.

So, I think the addition of the D-F in the lists and arsenal would be cover all the bases.

Thanks, Contrarius. I didn't mean to imply there wouldn't be A-C models still in use, only that there ought to be D-F models included in the lists/arsenal since they probably formed the bulk of the Panzer IIIs in the campaign. From what I recall, the A-C were test models (I think there were fewer than fifty produced in total. the D was a transition with a small production run, and then the E had about 100 made and the F 100 or perhaps more by May/June 1940.

So, I think the addition of the D-F in the lists and arsenal would be cover all the bases.

Just reread one of the key works on the early Pz IIIs, and noticed a few points that I'd missed or oversimplified.

• It seems that many, possibly most of the early versions were withdrawn from active service in Jan/Feb/March 1940 and sent to training schools; certainly this would cover the Ausf As and Bs, but not necessarily the Cs which differed little from the Ds.

• Production totals were 10 As, 15 Bs, 15Cs and 25 Ds. Five additional Ds were completed after the Poland campaign.

• Just under 100 Es were produced, however the first true mass-production version was the Ausf F, which externally was almost indinguishable from the E.

• The Ausf E models did initially suffer from major transmission problems but it was faults in the suspension system that forced the speed to be limited to 40km/hr.

• The first Ausf G's were delivered in March 1940; the main difference was improved rear hull armour - from 20 to 30mm; exactly how many saw service in France I can't say, but it probably did not exceed 20 or 30.

• The 5cm gun began to be fitted from June 1940 as experience in the French campaign made it clear the 3.7cm was woefully inadequate. A single 5cm prototype was delivered in early June, but I can't tell if it saw action in France.

I'm assuming that the List 4 FOO has a radio and is therefore able to move etc unlike those who have a simple dog & bone.

My question - is there a reason why the 1939 platoon are unique in having two mortar options, both of which seem to be 'cheaper' than the 1940/motorised platoons. Also I'm curious as to why the radio equipped FOO is not available after 1939?

We played a game with the German assault pioneer list last Weds. They've got the option to dedicate 3 men per squad as an engineering team, giving a mixed squad that can fight and do engineering tasks.

All good so far. Where things got slightly weird was when the Soviet defenders tried to ambush an attacking German squad including a flamethrower, and with another separate flamethrower attached. Rules as written state that engineers surrender when contacted in hand to hand, but this didn't seem right for the pioneers. It seemed especially odd that part of a squad would surrender when their mates were fighting alongside them.

We decided to allow the flamethrower crews to fight in the close combat, and didn't remove them. Thoughts?

The Vickers Support team appears on List 4 but has no leader. As I understand it, the Vickers would have come from the Divisional Machine Gun Battalion and so cannot be influenced any of the platoon leaders being from outside the battalion. Should they not have a junior leader with them or at least should there not be the option of adding one. There is the option of adding a Senior Leader with the '39 platoon but no way to add a junior. It seems to me that troops like that, re subordinated from Division, would have come with some sort of command element, if only to make sure they were looked after properly.